Thursday, June 26, 2008

Originalism At Its Finest

Today the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision struck down the Washington D.C. ban on handguns in a landmark case. I've read quite a few Supreme Court opinions, but Justice Scalia's majority opinion in todays case might be the best I've ever read (a close second would be his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas). Justice Scalia perfectly dissected the 2nd Amendment by taking each phrase and explaining what it meant when the amendment was adopted. I wasn't going to write about this case but I stubbled over a column by E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post and I had to write about it. Dionne's title is "Originalism Goes Out the Window", and he is obviously against the decision, but why is what interests me. Dionne writes "Conservative justices claim that they defer to local authority. Not in this case. They insist that political questions should be decided by elected officials. Not in this case. They argue that they pay careful attention to the precise words of the Constitution. Not in this case." Conservatives do want deferment to local authority in many cases, especially for moral or ambiguous questions which judges are no better then answering then anyone else, but nobody has ever argued that all questions be left to local authority. What if a state legislature banned printing newspapers, would Conservatives simply say "Well, we differ to the state."? No, when a political body violates the Constitution the courts must step in, that's what they're there for. Dionne also writes "Thursday's narrow majority spent the first 54 pages of its decision, written by Scalia, trying to show that even though the framers inserted 13 important words in front of the assertion of a right to bear arms, those words were essentially meaningless. Does that reflect an honest attempt to determine the 'original' intention of the Constitution's framers?" Did he read a different opinion then I did? Justice Scalia spent page after page examining the words in the text, what they meant in 1791, the history of those words, the history of the commentary on those words and what the framers said about them outside the Constitution. It not only reflected an honest attempt to determine the original intention of the Constitution but it could frankly be used as a guide in original intention interpretation. Next Dionne writes "But these pragmatic judgments underestimate how radical this decision is in light of the operating precedents of the last 69 years. The United States and its gun owners have done perfectly well since 1939, when an earlier Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment as implying a collective right to bear arms, but not an individual right." First off you tell the scared citizen of Washington D.C. who knows that if someone breaks into there house they won't be able to defend themselves that they have "done perfectly well". Also the 1939 reference is one of the case of United States v. Miller where the Supreme Court validated a law banning sawed off shotguns. As Justice Scalia pointed out "Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment." E.J. Dionne simply won't face the facts the Constitution does grant an individual the right to bear arms. Since the 2nd amendment refers to "the people" one would conclude that it's granted to an individual, like Justice Scalia said “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right.” Justice Scalia also points out that "[T]he people,’ refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset." If it only referred to a right of the militia then it would, in 1791, be a right of only white males from ages 18-45. The Court got it right today in their interpretation of the text, and Liberals need to admit it when the text doesn't support there wishes. 

Friday, June 20, 2008

To drill or not to drill

The question all over the news and the political world is what to do about gas prices. Conservatives argue that we must drill in Alaska and off the coast and Liberals argue that drilling isn't environmentally friendly and would take years and years before they would affect gas prices. Liberals instead call for developing alternative fuels and weaning off oil all together. Now the big problem with this debate is that everyone is looking for a silver bullet to solve the gas problem, but sorry to say there isn't one. There is nothing the government or the private sector can due that is going to bring down gas prices tomorrow, that is just the reality of the situation. Liberals are correct that drilling won't have an effect for a long time, but they have been saying that for a long time. If President Clinton wouldn't have vetoed opening up ANWAR in 1995 we would be by some estimates drilling there now. Just because something is going to take a long time doesn't mean we should just dismiss it. Drilling has to be apart of our long term strategy for oil independence, along with alternative fuels. I believe America can become independent but it is the work of a generation (hopefully mine) not one administration or a single bill. Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum sadly will continue to offer false hope of fixing this problem to win votes instead of actually working for a long term solution. The answer to this problem, like so many others, isn't easy but it is simple, and we must achieve it. 

Thursday, June 5, 2008

What's ahead

So Barack Obama is without a shadow of doubt the Democratic nominee for president, the showdown for the fall is set McCain vs. Obama. I've heard people giving their predictions for the fall but that is extremely difficult since these races are so fluid, but I give it a try. This will be a close race, unless some unforeseen scandal erupts. Obama will do better then Kerry did in 04', I believe he will win Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico and maybe Nevada. The last two elections the key battleground states have been Florida and Ohio, I think that both the states will end up going for McCain, the new battle states will be Michigan (this state could make or break the election) and Wisconsin. Michigan hasn't gone Republican since Bush in 88' but most polls have McCain in a statistical dead heat with Obama. There also could be some animosity among Democrats over Obama not even putting his name on the ballot in Michigan during the primary. Although history doesn't look favorably towards McCain in Michigan if he can get a lot of independents and Hillary supporters to jump to his side he could bring Michigan into the red. Wisconsin only went to Kerry in 04' by 11,384 votes and Gore in 00' by 5,708 votes and most polls have Obama and McCain very close. McCain shouldn't stand a chance against Obama with the economy is bad shape, Bush's approval rating in the low 30's and party id. going overwhelmingly to the Democrats. but Obama in my opinion is a flawed inexperienced candidate that white rural voters and older voters will reject. Although more Americans identify as Democrats, that hasn't led to a Democratic presidential victory in 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, or 2000 all years where more more people identified as Democrats. The problem is for Democrats is that the keep nominating flawed candidates like George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and now Barack Obama. This election will be a vital one for this nation and I think, and hope, that Americans won't elect the most liberal member of the US Senate who has little experience and the same leftist policy ideas that we have been hearing since the 60's over John McCain, but we will have to wait and see...   

Monday, June 2, 2008

Will we return to normalcy?

Many in America and especially liberals have been deplored at the foreign policy of the present administration. They have ridiculed our policies as unilateral, dangerous and even immoral. I have heard often that George W. Bush hijacked our foreign policy. If this were true the foreign policy of George W. Bush would have to be an anomaly in our history, it is however far from it. Liberals tend to have this idealistic notion that America has a long history of a cautious non-interventionist foreign policy and Bush is the antithesis to that history. The reality is that the idealism of Bush's foreign policy is an extension on the policies America has had since before it's inception in 1776. America started out as 13 small colonies along the Atlantic coast in the 17th century and has expanded into a nation stretching the length of North American continent with military bases on all 7 continents on Earth with operations by the U.S. military in 170 countries, it didn't do this with the foreign policy liberals advocate. The U.S. military has for better or worse has been in involved in by my approximate count 280 military actions (265 before Bush took office) in its history, the vast majority of which were unilateral and aggressive. The United States was defending it's interests abroad and fighting to expand its influence around the world long before Bush ever took office. Obama and the Democrats however promise to open a era of cooperation with other nations unlike Bush who has been attacked for being unilateral in his liberation of Iraq, besides that fact that 39 nations have contributed forces to Operation Iraqi Freedom. I don't know what the magic number of nations is when a unilateral action becomes lateral but apparently 39 isn't enough. This notion of the necessity of multilateral action is quite new in American history and isn't even pragmatic since the more nations in a military action the harder it is to coordinate. The U.S. has conducted countless unilateral actions with great success over the years. The Democrats also have attacked Bush for not getting U.N. approval for action in Iraq, even though Clinton didn't get U.N. approval for U.S. actions in Kosovo in 1999, but this isn't surprising since Democrats are the kings of selective outrage. This notion of the necessity of U.N. approval is the also new, a post Cold War and post-modern construct simply meant for smaller weaker nations to tie the hands of larger more powerful nations and usher in a period of cooperation and understanding among nations, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that pipe dream. Another complaint lodged at Bush is he has violated the Westphalian notions of sovereignty of the nation-state, but since the Treaty of Westpahlia in 1648 the sovereignty of the nation-state has been violated so many times by so many different nations that it is hard to take those notions seriously. America's foreign policy will continue to dominate the world and be involved the in the affairs of other nations regardless of whether or not McCain or Obama takes the White House in November. Obama will not suddenly overturn 400 years of American policy and even though he says he will be different his ideas are ambiguous on purpose. Obama isn't stupid, he knows that our foreign policy is crucial to keep the world stable and although he might say some punch lines to make some Liberals feel all warm & fuzzy inside he isn't going to change a thing, thankfully....    

Thursday, May 15, 2008

McCain's Goals

In the speech above John McCain today laid out his goals for his first term as President. They are ambitious and represent the direction McCain wants to take this country. To highlight the goals

  • End of combat role in Iraq by end of first term
  • Kill or capture Bin Laden
  • Diminished nuclear threats
  • Increased overall size and quality of our military
  • Reform/increase benefits for veterans
  • A multi-national force in Darfur to keep peace
  • A Reduction in capital gains/corporate taxes
  • A reformed tax system with 2 flat rates and simpler filing method
  • An end to earmarks by using veto power
  • Reduction in wasteful spending
  • Expanded free-trade agreements
  • A reformed unemployment insurance and worker retraining programs
  • A reformed education system through charter & private schools along with merit pay for teachers
  • An expansion of health care for all Americans through choice
  • A form of personal retirement accounts
  • Begin development on 20 new nuclear reactors
  • Judges appointed who don't make law but interpret it
  • A secured border and a severe reduction in illegal immigration
These goals show change that can work for America and make it stronger. I look forward to the debate between Senator McCain's vision listed above and Senator Obama's vision of bigger government, bigger spending & higher taxes. 

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

My Pick for V.P.

The question of who should John McCain pick for V.P. is a tuff one. There is no clear candidate who would be perfect each one has his or her ups and downs. On the Democrat side I think the choice is clear with Kathleen Sebelius, the Governor of Kansas, simply because she is a Democrat in a blue state, with executive experience, and has bi-partisan appeal. For my party the choice isn't as clear. There are certain traits the V.P. needs to compliment McCain, executive experience, needs to be young but not too young, should come from a battleground state. There is one who jumps out as someone who meets all these traits, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. The state of Minnesota, although a Republican hasn't won there since Nixon in 1972 (longer then any other state), the Republican Convention will be in Minneapolis and some think McCain can carry the state. Pawlenty also has a executive experience with a record of reform, turning a $4.3 billion deficit into a $700 million surplus without raising taxes, he is a solid conservative who has backed McCain for a long time. He is also the right age,47, to complement McCain. He is the son of a truck driver and comes from a working class neighborhood in St. Paul. He was the first person in his family to graduate from college and started out in politics as a city council member and worked his way up from the state legislature to the governorship. There are a couple honorable mentions such as Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and Louisana Governor Bobby Jindal, who I think will be great for 2012 or 2016, but still need more experience, even though Jindal has more experience in many respects then Obama.In the end I think a McCain/Pawlenty ticket would be great for the party and America. Below is a picture of Pawlenty talking to our troops.Photobucket

Obama & Gas Prices

This is a great ad showing the stupidity of Obama's windfall tax plan

Monday, May 12, 2008

Lowered Expectations

The American educational system is in crisis. Students today are pushed through middle and high schools without receiving a proper education or anything resembling a comprehensive knowledge of the world. I meet many people who have completed high school, who in my honest opinion, haven’t even grasped middle school concepts. Many people today have little understanding of the history of human events, social issues, and have a ridiculously limited vocabulary. I read a survey recently that concluded that more people could name the Three Stooges than the three branches of government; that is unacceptable. Students today enter into the workforce or college unequipped for the tasks ahead. Students today are given only a basic understanding of politics and history, which I think leads to a low voter turnout and a misunderstanding of current political and social issues. I personally feel that I now have an adequate understanding of politics and history, but nearly all of my education in these areas I have acquired on my own through reading and other research. In the last few years some states have instituted high school exit exams; some claim that they are too difficult, but I say we should raise the bar even higher for students wishing to be given a high school diploma. My class year in high school was the first to take the high school exit exam, and my class was given a chance to pass it my freshman year. I can remember thinking that there would be no way possible that I would pass a test meant for outgoing seniors my freshman year; I was wrong. I was shocked to find how simple and easy the test was; I passed it with ease my first try. The test had no social science questions, and the math and language sections looked like they were meant for someone with only a basic middle school education. My senior year of high school I saw that many people I knew were still having problems passing the test, which was unbelievable to me. I saw more and more critics of the tests saying that the tests were prohibiting people from graduating; my response was “good”; if people could not pass a test as simple as this one they have no business being given a high school diploma. A high school diploma should mean that you have at least a basic understanding of math, language, English, social sciences and have some grasp of analytical reasoning; I doubt most high school seniors even know what analytical reasoning means. We move high school students along far too quickly in this country without giving them the proper tools to improve themselves. The American educational system needs to raise the level of expectations on which topics high school students can grasp. The problem today isn’t that students can’t read or write, it’s that they can’t think, or more specifically they don’t know how to think. Students today are taught more how to memorize then how to critically analyze problems and develop solutions to those problems. Subject matter such as physiology, philosophy, and sociology are nowhere to be found in schools today; why? I think many teachers and administrators believe the subjects to be too hard to understand for high school students, but if that is true then they need to work to make it so these subjects are easy to understand for students. It is unconceivable to me why knowing the Pythagorean theorem is more important than a basic knowledge of the human psyche or society. Most high school students are forced to take at least three years of mathematics in which they learn advanced subjects such a trigonometry and calculus that they will most likely never need in later life, but only one year of U.S. history is required to graduate. I don’t understand why subjects such as mathematics are elevated above, in my eyes, far more important and useful subjects. This neglect of important subject leaves high school graduates with little knowledge of the history of this country and others, and without an understanding of where we have been it is difficult to understand where we need to go as a nation. Another key subject that is neglected in our schools is teaching students about finances. Teaching what a credit score is, how credit cards work, the principles of investment, and retirement savings are missing in a lot of our schools. Many young people don’t understand how credit cards work and get themselves into debt early, which hurts in later life. This is especially true in poorer neighborhoods where the parents themselves might not have understanding of these topics. Students need to also to be taught how to file taxes and fill out job applications. It would help students greatly if they were taught the proper way to conduct during a job interview. Another area I see where the expectation has been lowered in schools is with the teachers themselves. Throughout my middle and high school experiences, I found myself many times more knowledgeable in the subjects that some of the teachers were trying to teach than they were. I don’t understand how we expect students to be taught when the teachers themselves need more schooling. I understand that it is hard to get extremely intelligent people to teach at a public high school when they can’t teach at a university and make far more money, but we need to make sure that the teachers we have are proficient in the subjects they are teaching. A big problem I see is the teacher’s unions that make it next to impossible to fire incompetent teachers. I can remember parents at my old high school being fed up with incompetent teachers and going to the administration about it only to be told that there was nothing the school could do to remove mean and unproductive teachers; that is unacceptable. There needs to be an annual efficiency test and performance review for all teachers and if they repeatedly fail these tests, they need to be removed from the classroom, and have someone who is competent put in their place. Many of the teachers in our public school system are disgruntled and can be down right mean to there students. I have seen the difference that a teacher can make on a student’s outlook towards a certain subject or school in general. We need a system of identifying those teachers who are detrimental to a student’s education and bring in teachers who are qualified and have an enthusiasm about educating young people. Fixing the problems in schools is an extremely important task for our society. The expectations that we have for students and teachers need to increase dramatically to improve our school system. I believe more stringent testing in our schools is in order to ensure that students graduating high school are efficient in general concepts. We need to focus more on the subjects that will really help students, not only in college, but also in their daily lives. A key part of improving the education of students is simply improving the quality of the teaching that provides that education. The biggest step needed to improve our school system is for politicians to stop catering to the powerful teacher’s unions and return the power into the hands of parents. Parents should be making more decisions for their child than the bureaucrats at the Department of Education. Simply throwing more and more money at the problem, like so many politicians do, isn’t going to fix the problem. Parents, teachers and local school boards need to look abstractly at the problems that face our school system today. Young men and women, while only a small part of the entire population, are 100% of our future; therefore, it is imperative that we contemplate all possible solutions to the problem of our educational system

What do you look for in a Supreme Court Justice?

When Americans are deciding this November who should be the next President of our great nation there are many things to look at. For me one of the most important things is what kind of justices they will nominate for the Supreme Court. One can make a good argument that the 9 people on the court are the most powerful in our nation, they can strike down laws or actions by any other branch both federal and state. There are currently 6 Justices that are 68 or older, with one being 88 years old, so the next President will likely nominate at least 1 Justice to the highest court in the land. So lets look at what the two presumptive nominees have said regarding judicial appointments. Senator McCain said in a speech on May 6th, "I will look for accomplished men and women with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint. I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist -- jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference. My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power. They will be men and women of experience and wisdom, and the humility that comes with both. They will do their work with impartiality, honor, and humanity, with an alert conscience, immune to flattery and fashionable theory, and faithful in all things to the Constitution of the United States." On the other hand Senator Obama has said that in order for a justice to be acceptable he has to share "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." The things Senator Obama looks for would make sense if you were selecting a therapist , but not a Supreme Court Justice. One's empathy is completely irrelevant to interpreting the law. The Supreme Court is supposed to be impartial and not inject one's personal feelings into cases, but strictly interpret the law. You would think since Obama graduated from Harvard Law School and was a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School he would know that empathy isn't relevant but you would be wrong. Senator Obama is just like all other liberals when is comes to the courts, they want to use it as a tool to advance agendas they can't through normal democratic means, I'll give an example. Let's take probably the most hot button issue that has come before the court, abortion. The famous case Roe v. Wade made it so that states couldn't outlaw abortion, if you support abortions then you would probably say that's good, but the court doesn't decided what is good. The question of the constitutionality of  abortion isn't a question of whether it's moral or pragmatic but whether there is a constitutional right to have an abortion. Liberal justices have invented a right of abortion that is found nowhere in the constitutional because they think a women should have the right to choose. The flaw in this logic lies in the fact that we live in a democracy where what is or isn't moral or pragmatic isn't decided by 9 people in black robes, but by the people through elected representatives. In Roe v. Wade the legislature of the state of Texas had decided they didn't want abortion, but the Supreme Court took the power of the people to decided away. If there were votes in each state to decide whether the people wanted abortion to be legal or not some states would want it legal others would not, and that is democracy. Instead of this method, which is the method the founders put in our constitution, Obama wants to appoint justices who find rights in the "penumbras" of other provisions, like the court did in Griswald v. Connecticut. The choice in November will be a clear one between Senator McCain's vision of a Supreme Court which lets the people decide ambiguous moral questions and just simply interprets the law, or Senator Obama's vision of a Supreme Court which creates rights it likes (abortion, privacy ect.) and dismisses rights it doesn't (gun, property ect.). In the next presidential term, with liberal justices Ruth Ginsburg and John Stevens turning 79 and 92 respectively, there is a real opportunity to have 6 solid originalist justices on the court. To me on the issue of justices there is no question, John McCain is the right choice. 

Friday, May 9, 2008

Unbelievable

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) has introduced H.R. 5800 the "Consumer Reasonable Energy Price Protection Act", I have heard of some dumb bills coming from people with (D) after their name but this one might take the cake. Many of Americans are fed up with high gas prices, trust me I understand, but what this bill proposes would only hurt the situation. It first sets up a "Reasonable Profits Board" to determine when oil companies profits are in excess and then tax them on those profits. Besides this being pragmatically stupid in sounds like something straight out of Communist Russia. One of the main pillars of capitalism is the idea of no limitation on the accumulation of property, and this bill straps dynamite to that pillar and blows it to pieces. Democrats usually try to hide it when they're closest Marxists but it always makes me laugh when they don't even care and make it apparent. This bill would tax oil companies "windfall", or undeserved, profits. I don't know about you but I don't like the idea of the government deciding what profits are deserved. The idea, be it a bad one, is that oil companies would lower prices so their profits wouldn't be as high ergo less taxes for them. Now this formula simply doesn't make sense to anyone with even a remote understanding of economics. If you increases the taxes on the oil companies profits they aren't going to say "Okay government you got us we'll lower our prices now, sorry" they will simply pass any loss in profit on to the consumer, which means even higher gas prices. I hear liberals say the oil companies don't pay enough taxes, really, do liberals even care to see how much they actually pay. Let's take Exxon Mobil for instance, in 2007 they paid $30 billion in taxes. The bottom 50% of American taxpayers (65,000,000 people) paid $27.4 billion in taxes. So one corporation paid more in taxes then 65,000,000 people combined, yea they don't pay any taxes.  Lawmakers need to realize that increasing taxes on the oil companies isn't going to lower gas prices one bit, all it will do is take more money from the private sector (which creates jobs and investment) and turn it over to the government.  

Thursday, May 8, 2008

War or Peace?

I have been a staunch supporter of our efforts in Iraq since the beginning, although in March of 2003 when we initially invaded Iraq I was only a 17 year old  in high school with little practical geopolitical knowledge. In spite of this I knew Saddam was a evil dictator that was a threat to peace and stability and therefore needed to be removed. I think often the Iraq debate, 5 years later, is still centered on whether or not it was prudent to do what we did in the spring of 03'. Opponents of the war say, "All of the problems in Iraq are a result of us invading in the first place", that maybe correct but since any projection of what Iraq would look like if we hadn't invaded would be mere speculation we can't know if some other more horrible unforeseen situation might have risen if we hadn't invaded. The reality is we don't know what the Middle East or the rest of the world would look like if we hadn't invaded, maybe better or maybe worse. The point I'm trying to make is that debates on whether or not we should have invaded Iraq is one for historians many years from now. The debate needs to be what is best not only of American interests in the region but what is best for the Iraqi people. Now in the two large contemporary American wars, Vietnam and Iraq, there have been two sides, those for peace and those for war. Is is really that simple? The phrases "make love not war" or "no war" sound really good at first glance to me. I think love is better then war and I don't want any wars, but again is is really that simple? War means death, destruction, hunger, insanity, famine and terror so according to most anti-war activists I support all the things listed above, but I don't want any of those things. I now see why many naive people of my generation (gen. y) latch on to anti-war movements since they simple sound better. I asked the question earlier if the peace vs. war distinction was really that easy, I now I want to answer it. Let's take the war we are in now as a perfect example. I support keeping our troops in Iraq as long as it takes to produce a stable and free Iraq so I'm branded pro-war, but I hate war!!! It is simply because I hate war that don't want our troops to leave early, most anti-war activists would say I just contradicted myself, but therein lies the inherent problem. Most anti-war activists want all of our troops out tomorrow which I and a lot of people believe will lead to Al-Qaeda in Iraq retaking the ground they lost as a result of the surge, Iran moving more into Iraq via the Mahdi Militia, and this all would lead to a civil war between the Sunni insurgency, the Shia insurgency and the fragile Iraqi government that would make the violence after the bombing of the 2006 Al-Askari Mosque in Samarra look like child's play. Thousands upon thousands of Iraqi's would die as a result and the war could spill into Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan resulting in a catastrophe like we have never seen. So really isn't it that people who call for our immediate withdraw from Iraq, unknowingly or not, are calling for more war and more death. I don't mean to attack people who want to withdraw now from Iraq, but to really want us to pack our bags and get out of there now you have to be either naive to the fact the it would be a disaster or you would have to simply not care. Politics and war are not simple things so when people reduce a complicated situation such as the Iraq War to a simple slogan, "war or peace?", people should really examine whether it's really that simple. 

Am I Conservative?

As a young so-called “conservative” I have often wondered why I bear that name. I’m called or labeled a conservative because I believe in limited government, laissez faire capitalism, a strong military, free trade, and states rights among other things, but are these the things that make me conservative? Well I first must establish where this word comes from. The word conservative comes from the Latin come servare, or to preserve. Webster’s Dictionary backs up the Latin when it list the traditional definition as, “tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions”, but is this what this really what defines my point of view? I don’t consider myself one who wants to keep the status quo in America, nor do most Americans. Sure there are certain institutions of American government I wish to preserve, but this desire to preserve doesn’t define my political ideology or what I want from our elected officials. What do I want to conserve as a “conservative”? Do I want to conserve a government that regulates everything from how much water your toilet can use to how much wheat you can grow? Do I want to conserve a government that is heavily involved in the economy? Do I want to conserve a government that’s main concern isn’t the defense of this nation? Do I want to conserve a government that puts heavy tariffs on trade? Do I want to conserve a government that tramples on states rights? I, along with most conservatives, would say no to all those questions, but I’m still branded as a conservative standing in the door of progress. Well I contend that the battle between conservatives and liberals, even though I dispute that term also, was waged long before I was born, in the 1960s, and sorry to say the liberals won. In that decade America, whether we knew it or not, decided that the government had the solutions to our problems, and the federal government intruded into areas where no one thought that they would have years before. Today, conservatives call for something much different then what we have today, even though many Republican lawmakers don’t listen. I hear calls from Senator Obama and Clinton for change, but they aren’t advocating change, if you look at their actual policy proposals and not their empty speeches they are advocating more of the same. The Democratic Party candidates are calling for more government intrusion, more taxes, more spending, more regulation more, more, more. So why are conservatives labeled the way they are? Well that is pretty complicated but I’ll give it a shot. Although conservatism traces its roots back to 18th century British statesman Edmund Burke, and his pivotal work “Reflections on the Revolution in France” in which he spoke against nice sounding new theories of government uprooting tried and tested tradition, it really stems as a reaction to the New Deal Liberalism of the 1930s and 1940s. This is where the problem began, Conservatism started as a reactionary movement to stop government expansion under the Roosevelt Administration. This battle continued with Kennedy’s “New Frontier” and Johnson’s “Great Society”. Now liberals have been calling conservatives “reactionary” in a derogatory sense for years, and they were right to call conservatives that even if the reaction was a correct one. This tendency for conservatives to sit back and wait for liberals to propose something ridiculous, which happens often, and then react to it has been a major flaw with modern conservatives. It is hard, especially for young people, to get excited about of movement that is defined by what they are against instead of what they are for. There are exceptions to this reactionary streak but they are still just exceptions and not the rule. Conservatives and the Republican Party need to become the agents of real change, not just nice sounding words about change, but really propose of revolution in government from one that fails at practically everything to one that really works for people. I’ll probably talk more about what I think conservatives should be proposing later, but the real point I’m trying to make is that if conservatives keep on only making objections and just attacking liberals as “crazy socialists” they will lose elections. They need to make bold policy statements and develop fresh ideas on how to deal with everything our failing education system to global warming. Wow I just criticized conservatives and I liked it, that’s a change. Well that’s it…..